Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gsiasf@gmail.com designates
 74.125.83.48 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=rxT9KoS83CDvQnBgyvvO6pC/H1t9OuRZKsZyrgzV0cOwWzWvkbOJKJ+E25Xlf4mBr9
         5HZM/SC4y3q4ngrZ/swWR9XxlVM70tvoGzTteNew1ncxmIyOmYaAYXO0Vofvczdes0C9
         C7XUg4tfPVwsUKIDyagHFqmPud0qr/X2aF98A=
Sender: Grant Ingersoll <gsiasf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <88C5ED00-5D96-421F-ACCD-66CB6706D67D@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:34:29 -0500
Cc: general@lucene.apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4EFB1AF-C50D-4A00-8A20-7990C921A5EC@apache.org>
References: <C7BBA59D.DD56%Chris.A.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>
 <544AC1BC-7A1A-42E5-9CFC-57A60E972760@apache.org>
 <4B96704D.5020501@apache.org>
 <88C5ED00-5D96-421F-ACCD-66CB6706D67D@apache.org>
To: Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>


On Mar 9, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

>=20
> On Mar 9, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Dennis Kubes wrote:
>=20
>> I agree.  Most of those things can/should be moved into Lucene.  That =
doesn't necessitate merging.  Separate responsibilities.
>>=20
>>> For that matter, why do we even need to have this discussion at all? =
 > Most of us Solr committers are Lucene committers.  We can simply =
start
>>> committing Solr code to Lucene such that in 6 months the whole
>>> discussion is moot and the three committers on Solr who aren't =
Lucene
>>> committers can earn their Lucene merit very quickly by patching the
>>> "Solr" portion of Lucene.  We can move all the code to it's
>>> appropriate place, add a contrib module for the WAR stuff and the
>>> response writers and voila, Solr is in Lucene, the dev mailing lists
>>> have merged by the fact that Solr dev would be defunct and all of =
the
>>> proposals in this vote are implemented simply by employing our =
commit
>>> privileges in a concerted way.
>>=20
>> Am I reading you right.  Are you are proposing a hostile takeover of =
the Lucene project?  Even being committers there needs to be discussion =
with the community about the best path.  Or are you suggesting we bypass =
discussion?  I am now even more concerned that merging is not the right =
way to go.
>>=20
>=20
> No.  Would you please re-read it and not quote me out of context.  You =
left the next sentence off, which is of course the vital one.

Namely:
"Yet, somehow, me thinks that isn't a good solution either, right?  Yet =
it is perfectly "legal" and is just as valid a solution as the =
"poaching" solution and in a lot of ways seems to be what Chris is =
proposing."

My point is, if people would just step back for a minute and remove the =
labels of Solr and Lucene and look at the code, the discussion would be =
a whole lot different.  Furthermore, if they stepped back and looked at =
the actual people who do the actual work on Lucene and Solr, you would =
see that these separations are slowing down both Lucene and Solr and =
hurting them more than helping.   This has been expressed time and time =
again by committers in both Lucene and in Solr and even in Nutch, =
including many committers who do not even work on Solr. =20

-Grant=